Weird Time for Christians

[Moiraine]

37 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

At least one person there was sane.

I think of all the crazy things that have happened during this presidency, Christians deciding morality doesn't matter because Trump is a Republican is the craziest for me. Especially since I've been around Christians my entire life (and am Christian) and I'm old enough to remember how the adult Christians I was around acted when Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. I realized pretty quickly during my teen years that there were a lot of hypocrites around but their behavior during Trump's presidency takes the cake.

[rolldog]

Trump was definitely the least of the evils to vote for.

 

If Christians are making the decision to vote on morality, how is the Democrat party more moral than Trump?

[TGHusker]

23 hours ago, rolldog said:

Trump was definitely the least of the evils to vote for.

 

If Christians are making the decision to vote on morality, how is the Democrat party more moral than Trump?

rolldog - welcome to the forum

 

Politics makes for strange bedfellows and sometimes it is best not to get in bed wt any of the 'fellows'.   As a Christian, I don't believe we should have a loyalty to a political leader but to our faith.  Parties are only as 'moral' as their members and as expressed by their leaders.  When a political decision is made that you can applaud, then applaud but do not have strings attached and independently speak out where he misses the mark.   Trump misses the mark in so many areas both personal and politically and yet there are cricket sounds when it comes to faith leaders speaking out independently in response to his failing as a leader.   My concern as expressed in my post above is that there has been too much loyalty given to a man who does not share the values that the Christian faith is to hold.   Regarding the Dem party - one could be morally concern about their no holds bar support of abortion, but also on the positive side they are the party that tries to trumpet the rights of the poor, downcast, disadvantaged - social justice is also a moral issue.  So I think it is best to evaluate the individual person on the ballot verse the party as a whole.  Which person is more aligned with your personal values - regardless of party.

[NM11046]

Welcome rolldog!

 

You're going to have to explain your question a bit to me ... what moral failings do you think the democratic party as a whole represents?

 

And then my deep follow up - Can moral failings really be part of a party's identity?  (Trick question - the answer imo is no - that's defined at an individual level by their words and more so by their actions)

 

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, rolldog said:

Trump was definitely the least of the evils to vote for.

 

If Christians are making the decision to vote on morality, how is the Democrat party more moral than Trump?

 

 

I'm not talking about voting for him. I'm talking about supporting him. I know people who voted for Trump because of the abortion issue, and I understood it. But the election is long over.

They should be calling for him to be impeached like they did with Bill Clinton. Then they'd have Pence as president. Instead they're praying for him and telling him they love him and their support of him doesn't drop no matter what detestable thing he does, because he's a Republican.

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, rolldog said:

Trump was definitely the least of the evils to vote for.

 

If Christians are making the decision to vote on morality, how is the Democrat party more moral than Trump?

 

I guess my first question is, what moral integrity do you think Trump has?

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, rolldog said:

Trump was definitely the least of the evils to vote for.

 

If Christians are making the decision to vote on morality, how is the Democrat party more moral than Trump?

 

 

If you're comparing Trump to other individual candidates, you could have voted for a candidate that didn't have several affairs, several divorces, several financial crimes, be found guilty of racist housing discrimination, didn't gloat about their greed and wealth, etc.

[commando]

   

 

 

[NM11046]

If you don't follow John Pavlovitz he's a good one on twitter.  Writes quick articles daily (or at least posts articles daily) that are timely, manageable and insightful.  I thought of you @TGHusker when I read this one today.

 

 

[TGHusker]

On 11/11/2018 at 8:00 AM, NM11046 said:

If you don't follow John Pavlovitz he's a good one on twitter.  Writes quick articles daily (or at least posts articles daily) that are timely, manageable and insightful.  I thought of you @TGHusker when I read this one today.

 

 

Yes, a very good quote there.  If we are forced to 'abandon the name Christian' then that is a sign we have previously 'abandoned Jesus Christ' and abandoned Him for 10 Shekels and a Shirt (look it up)- a place in society, a place at the political table while giving up our place in the kingdom.  We've abandoned the 'Greater Reward' for the lessor, the eternal for the temporal and we compromise the work of Christ as a result.  The evangelical church has given up the 'reproach of Christ' for the cheap cheers of the political elite and as a result we have that as our reward and only reward.  It is better to lay up treasures in heaven being faithful with the Gospel message than to accept the 'high cost of living so cheaply' now. The Gospel message isn't a political message. In saying this, I don't say Christians shouldn't have a place in the political marketplace but that our loyalty is to Christ, His Gospel and fulfilling the 2 great commandments 1. Love God with all our hearts, mind, soul and strength and 2. Love our neighbor as our self- serving others.  (I'm seriously considering the policy of evaluating  which party does a better job of loving our neighbor as a requirement of earning my vote.  If the Dems weren't so set on abortion at all costs - the decision would be easy.  That is the one moral issue that is difficult for me to get over.)

Our  loyalty should never be to a party or especially to a morally corrupt leader of a party. 

[Moiraine]

On 11/11/2018 at 8:00 AM, NM11046 said:

If you don't follow John Pavlovitz he's a good one on twitter.  Writes quick articles daily (or at least posts articles daily) that are timely, manageable and insightful.  I thought of you @TGHusker when I read this one today.

 

 

 

 

People need to learn to differentiate between Christianity and Christians. Christians have been the most hypocritical, self-unaware group of people I've been around so far, but I don't judge The Bible based on its followers.

 

 

5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Yes, a very good quote there.  If we are forced to 'abandon the name Christian' then that is a sign we have previously 'abandoned Jesus Christ' and abandoned Him for 10 Shekels and a Shirt (look it up)- a place in society, a place at the political table while giving up our place in the kingdom.  We've abandoned the 'Greater Reward' for the lessor, the eternal for the temporal and we compromise the work of Christ as a result.  The evangelical church has given up the 'reproach of Christ' for the cheap cheers of the political elite and as a result we have that as our reward and only reward.  It is better to lay up treasures in heaven being faithful with the Gospel message than to accept the 'high cost of living so cheaply' now. The Gospel message isn't a political message. In saying this, I don't say Christians shouldn't have a place in the political marketplace but that our loyalty is to Christ, His Gospel and fulfilling the 2 great commandments 1. Love God with all our hearts, mind, soul and strength and 2. Love our neighbor as our self- serving others.  (I'm seriously considering the policy of evaluating  which party does a better job of loving our neighbor as a requirement of earning my vote.  If the Dems weren't so set on abortion at all costs - the decision would be easy.  That is the one moral issue that is difficult for me to get over.)

Our  loyalty should never be to a party or especially to a morally corrupt leader of a party. 

 

 

What does the bolded mean to you?

[TGHusker]

6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

People need to learn to differentiate between Christianity and Christians. Christians have been the most hypocritical, self-unaware group of people I've been around so far, but I don't judge The Bible based on its followers.

 

 

 

 

What does the bolded mean to you?

Generally I see that Dems will support any and all abortion issues - including late term.  I, however, see the baby in the womb as a person, with rights - esp the right to life.  They are more than 'potential life' - they are a living being just at an earlier stage of development than the rest of us and vastly more dependent than the rest of us but still life (kind of also how we end up at the end of life - greatly dependent and regressing in our development). Even the 'handicapped' child has a way of giving us (who are already living) a quality of life in ways that no other can - the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, love, self control etc are being taught us as we care for these.  These are higher life goals than convenience & financial limitations.  Yes abortion may be the only answer when the life of the mother is at risk and maybe some of exceptions.  But there are other alternatives to abortion for those who don't want the inconvenience of a baby or don't have the financial ability to raise a child.  When we don't value life in all forms, we devalue ourselves.  Abortion at all costs, without restrictions devalues us all.  And I see the Dem party too often using that as their litmus test of 'doctrinal purity'.    I'd like to see the Dems open their tent more to pro-life voters. It may not be in their philosophical makeup to do so any more.  I don't see why we cannot be pro-life and also pro-woman on this issue.  Yes, probably easy for me to say as a man, I don't have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and I know that this is a very complicated issue on many levels with each situation being a decision of the mother, doctor, and hopefully the father. 

Also - I mentioned it before - Pro-life people must be pro-life people on both sides of the womb - before birth and after birth.  So the Repubs on the other hand fall far short of coming up with practical real world ways of meeting the needs of the society - often pushing business and military interests at the expense of the safety net for the disadvantaged, etc.

[funhusker]

15 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Generally I see that Dems will support any and all abortion issues - including late term.  I, however, see the baby in the womb as a person, with rights - esp the right to life.  They are more than 'potential life' - they are a living being just at an earlier stage of development than the rest of us and vastly more dependent than the rest of us but still life (kind of also how we end up at the end of life - greatly dependent and regressing in our development). Even the 'handicapped' child has a way of giving us (who are already living) a quality of life in ways that no other can - the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, love, self control etc are being taught us as we care for these.  These are higher life goals than convenience & financial limitations.  Yes abortion may be the only answer when the life of the mother is at risk and maybe some of exceptions.  But there are other alternatives to abortion for those who don't want the inconvenience of a baby or don't have the financial ability to raise a child.  When we don't value life in all forms, we devalue ourselves.  Abortion at all costs, without restrictions devalues us all.  And I see the Dem party too often using that as their litmus test of 'doctrinal purity'.    I'd like to see the Dems open their tent more to pro-life voters. It may not be in their philosophical makeup to do so any more.  I don't see why we cannot be pro-life and also pro-woman on this issue.  Yes, probably easy for me to say as a man, I don't have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and I know that this is a very complicated issue on many levels with each situation being a decision of the mother, doctor, and hopefully the father. 

Also - I mentioned it before - Pro-life people must be pro-life people on both sides of the womb - before birth and after birth.  So the Repubs on the other hand fall far short of coming up with practical real world ways of meeting the needs of the society - often pushing business and military interests at the expense of the safety net for the disadvantaged, etc.

Do you believe a mother must carry a dead fetus until she gives birth naturally?  Not a fetus non-compatible with life, but a fetus without a heartbeat and is already gone.

 

If you agree that that is a cruel and heartless expectation and mothers and fathers can choose to induce labor and begin grieving, you are a proponent of "late term abortion".  

[TGHusker]

6 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Do you believe a mother must carry a dead fetus until she gives birth naturally?

Of course not.   We can be reasonable in this discussion.  

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Of course not.   We can be reasonable in this discussion.  

Then read my edit.  "Late term abortion" isn't a thing. 

 

Sorry if I came of as unreasonable.  I was in a hurry and didn't add my explanation...